Posted
by
timothy
on Tuesday April 08, 2003 @06:09PM
from the bofh-wasn't-good-enough dept.

sjanich writes "A discussion has begun at SAGE on an updated title to replace "Systems Administrator". I figure more sysadmins are reading Slashdot than are reading SAGEwire. Rob Kolstad of SAGE wrote: 'What in the world do we call the collective group of those people who make computers work properly? I'm not talking about users, and I'm not talking about software developers. I am thinking of: system administrators, LAN administrators, network administrators (both kinds!), security administrators, e-mail administrators, desktop support groups, database administrators, and all the other kinds of support that keep the IT function of an institution running -- what is this huge group called?' My favorite options are "Computer Infrastructure Practitioner" or "Computer Infrastructure Specialist". The original discussion can be found here at SAGEwire."

Seriously though, what's wrong with all the current names for these people? It's not like "Computer Infrastructure Specialist" is less verbose, which is the only problem I see with the current designations. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

this says:
1) this guy does something with The System.
we don't know what, but that's what he
does. it's very accurate that way.
2) this guy is probably crazy. avoid him.
3) this guy will blame problems on spiritual
forces.
4) nothing new, but sounds cooler.

I read through the posts on SAGEWire and as I was reading them,some of the things he mentioned like a Salary Survey would stillwant to get a specific title. The reason for this is thedifferences in salaries between a Database Administrator and anE-mail Administrator can be vast.

Maybe if we look to the medical field we can get some insight.They have the term "General Practitioner" or "Family Doctor" asa broad term that applies to many things. However thespecialist terms such as "Cardiologist", "Neuro-Surgeon","Ortho-pedic" still apply. So in that sense the title conveyssome very useful information. You definitely want to know ifyou are hiring a Cardiologist or a General Practicioner for thatopen heart surgery.

In that vein I would be in favor of adding terms along theselines:System GeneralistComputer System GeneralistServer Generalist

Perhaps you could break it down by category, this would stilloffer a more generic, but allow for some categorization:

Geek does not carry the negative connotation it once did (I grew up when being a "geek" was NOT a good thing)... how about simply different types of geeks? Wear your geek credentials as a badge of honor:

Networking geekWeb geekCode geekServer geeketc.

For instance, I'm a Physician, or Doctor... and I typically go by that simple title (if I tell people what I do at all... often I don't want them knowing what I do for a living). I also go by my first name, last name, or whatever somebody wants to call me...

Why do we humans have the need to have these great sweeping titles for everything. Sometimes, if it is not broken, do not fix it. All we need is another word to stick in the part of our brain marked 'useless stuff'.

I my self am a Microcomputer support Tech. I do sys administratation, take care of the network and server, etc. and various bitch work cause they don't like me sitting around waiting for something to break allday.

Hmmmm. At the studio that I run with my wife and two friends of ours, if everything is working, I'm "the computer guy." If something breaks and I manage to fix it quickly and without apparent effort, I'm "A Genius!". If something breaks and I have to spend the rest of the day futzing with it, I'm "a musician who fixes computers."

is IT guy. Nobody outside of IT, engineering and HR can even tell the difference between the job distinctions. Just like I cannot tell the difference between the different HR positions. They're all just HR people to me.

Speaking as a non sysadmin I always reserve a little bit of reverence for the "sysadmin." I think the term has enough legacy and meaning to warrant thinking twice before changing it. Plus, it's a bit of a standard in a field where standardized titles are hard to come by.

I put my occupation as "Computer Guy" on my tax forms. Since I do EVERYTHING (purchasing, system integration, server maintainence, writing software, helping users), I figure it was the only thing that was appropriate.

There are so many names that are possible. I see two solutions. One is where people can make up whatever title they choose, this is basically what's happening now, except only the managers and other bigwigs get to decide.
The more thoughtful practice though would be to set some (inter)national standards, much like the W3C web standards. That way if you carry a certain title, it means a certain something, not like now where anybody can (and do) say they are anything and that really doesn't help anyone either.

I get to hear them all - from "evangelist" (marketing manager) to "chief cheerleader" (comms manager) to vice president in charge of watching America's Cup yachting, please interview him so we can put his holiday to your sunny islands on our business expenses.

the old adage is true - the longer the title the less the person does. If you administer systems, then you're an system administrator. You're not an entrenching tool.

I've never understood why people don't like to be called secretaries. I mean, you have people like Secretary of State, or Secretary of Treasury, and they're perfectly respectable positions, even positions of honor.

On the other hand, being "administrative assistant" highlights that you're someone's assistant. (as in "my bitch")

And who are you fooling anyways? By now, most people equate "administrative assistant" == secretary, anyways.

The latter is my current title, though they're about to slap and additional one (Web Developer) on there as well. I have no problems with that, though regardless of my Network Admin/Web Dev status, I will still be called out to fix a printer, or switch out RAM, or go through old RS/6000 logs looking for some stray error message.

I've worked all of my sys admin jobs at financial institutions. I've worked for both banks and credit unions (credit unions have the edge, in my experience), in groups large and small. The largest group was about 8 guys, the smallest just me and my boss. They both have their problems. But that's not what this discussion is about.

This discussions is about how to label a guy who can't really have a label. Technician is so vague that it doesn't carry merit. Specialist too suffers from the same thing. Stick "Computer" in front of them, and you still have the vagarities that reek of any title that a job may provide you with.

Most places, unless they're Conglomerates (and all that that implies), want you to go above and beyond. This means that sometimes titles are left by the wayside as you throw a box in your car and hightail it to a destination, ready to provide that quick fix.

This discussion is moot and pointless in my opinion. Network Administrators and System Administrators will, in small shops, most likely be doing each others job at least part of the time.

No title is infallible, no title can encompass everything that you do or provide. Do not look for one to do so, because it does not, and can not, exist.

Simple. If you are in such a small shop that you really have 5 job titles rather than 1, then just list all of them. Don't bother making up fancy new titles. Just acknowledge the fact that you should really have more than one.

While my professional title changes per job(currently 'Sr. Systems Engineer"...oooo, impressive huh?;)), my resume has said Systems Administrator for a while now. Personally I worked very hard to get that title.....and feel no need to change it. Sounds like the same as giving Unix a new name cause no one really knows what it means or is...what really matters is that the people who hire me(and they have yet to stop doing that) know exactly what it means and how important I am to them.

The difficulty with titles is the are often usurped by people who believe they do the same thing. Human Resource departments have become expert at this.Programmer - codes programsSystem Administrator - Reboots computers. Called when mail not working or I cannot open Outlook or the network is down.etc.

Rather than look for a new name, they should be working on describing a lists of talents, duties, and capabilities that define a system administrator. This should be augmented with a level of competence to allow for Junior Systems Administrator, Systems Administrator, Senior Systems Administrator, and finally Master Systems Administrator.

It probably also needs two paths. One Unix/Linux and one Windows. You could probably even make an argument for splitting Unix/Linux if you wish.

I have taken this approach internally and it has smoothed things greatly. Now when I speak with HR, and tell them I am looking for a Systems Admin they know what criteria they need to look for. A global standard would only make it that much easier for everyone.

Rather than look for a new name, they should be working on describing a lists of talents, duties, and capabilities that define a system administrator. This should be augmented with a level of competence to allow for Junior Systems Administrator, Systems Administrator, Senior Systems Administrator, and finally Master Systems Administrator.

It probably also needs two paths. One Unix/Linux and one Windows. You could probably even make an argument for splitting Unix/Linux if you wish.

There's a strong inverse correlation between job title and importance. Influential, important people have jobs like "doctor", "lawyer", "president". Doctors _aren't_ called "advanced internal healthcare treatment professional". Consequently, if you want to sound like a lowly prole with a job title that's supposed to make up for your tiny salary, get yourself a long title full of "power" words.

To be serious for a moment, I could live with Network Guru or Captain of the Infrastructure. My favorite "dot-com boom" job title was "Great and Powerful Network Magician". I think that was at Peapod.com.

I saw the ad and knew I should never ever work at a place with such an absurd name for its employees... They also had stuff like "Perl/C++ Code Wizard".

It doesn't matter. If sysadmins change their title to be X people will still refer to them as sysadmins. Just like "software engineers", "developers", "systems architect", etc. are still called "programmers" by most people.

At our company we call all SysAdmins: System Engineers. In some places in the US and Canada is it against the law to use the term Engineer in your title if you did not graduate from an accredited engineering school. However, in British Columbia there is no such law on the books so we are free to use it. When applying for jobs in other places it looks really good to have the title Engineer on your resume.

Apprentice - Your average precocious kid, or computer dude in the lab.

Journeyman - Has worked with several different networks with at least 1 year of professional experience.

Master - Has assembled a complete system within his/her specialty and kept it running for one full year.

Engineer - Has designed a novel new system, published the design, and has supported the development for one year.

Guru - Has been active in the Computer community for at least 5 years. Has a strong enough opinion about an issue to piss off as many poeple as he/she turns on. Is generally regarded simultaneously as Insane and Genius. Has a day job, but most of his/her fun stuff is done after hours.

I've always had problems with titles like "expert" and "specialist" (even though my title contains the word specialist in it). Mainly because I don't believe in experts or specialist. People who actively WANT to be addressed by these titles are typically not very qualified to carry them. And in general, the titles are quite misleading. I'm VERY GOOD at what I do, but I am no expert or specialist by any means. Anyone who has the pride to think that they can fill those titles is delusional.

I've always preferred "admin" myself since it carries the correct ring of authority, but still stops at classifying the holder as a complete expert. The problem is that a lot of suits don't like it because they feel it's their term. I remember once proposing to a former employer that they change my title from "Technology Specialist" to "Network Admin" since that's what I really was. they balked at that. But about a year later, the employer conceded that it was a legitimate title and more fitting of what I did. Their hesitance seemed to have to do with the fact that they felt that the word "Administration" applied to the suites on the top floor and not with the grunts on the ground floor. (Or in the basement as was my case at the time)

On the other hand, some other titles that might fit are:

-IT Manager (as in, the manager of the information technology used by others)-Digital Information Stylist (tongue in cheek here folks)-AEtherlord (OK... now I'm going way over the top)

One particular title I can't STAND is "Knowledge Manager". These guys are typically suits who wish they knew about technology but are really an obstruction standing between the computers and the people who know how to ue them. It's sad because Knowledge Management really DOES have a real purpose, but it's been co-opted by the middle managers who want to "orchestrate" things they don't understand. (And schmooze and play golf three days of every work week)

Do I need a title change? I've changed the names I use online more frequently than my title.:)

I use "Senior Systems Administrator". If anyone questions what that includes, the answer is "yes". As far as I'm concerned, the full description is "The person directly responsible for any event within any part of the company."

I'm a customer support rep on occasion, when stupid calls get handed off to me.

I'm the always-available tax consultant.

I'm the free and usually right legal advice department (go find a lawyer, dammit)

I'm the company librarian, who can always point you to the right book or reference.

I'm the senior transportation coordinator, when someone needs a ride somewhere, or equipment needs transported between locations. Usually that also makes me the company driver too.

I'm the company accountant, explaining bills from various vendors to the boss, or even the vendor. (ask UUNet why they billed us $30k for a line they never installed).

I'm the air conditioning repair guy, resetting thermostats, replacing broken thermostats, repairing electrical problems in the A/C unit, and diagnosing further problems. I also end up designing ways to cool overheated rooms, and counsel people who are always too hot or too cold, and very frequently both.

I'm the bastard that has to explain that Microsoft programs do crash, and you will have to accept this. It doesn't matter to me that you worked on an Excel Spreadsheet for 6 hours before your machine blue-screened. No, I can't save your data when your machine is locked up. Yes, you should have saved it.

I'm the LAN specialist, diagnosing every time someone kicks a cable out of the wall.

I'm the Nortel tech, configuring, reconfiguring, and yet reconfiguring again the phone systems.

I'm the tech that cleans up the mess after you try to subcontract out the work for the phone system, and he leaves all the lines down and says "I don't know, maybe you need an upgrade. That'll be $6,000".

I'm the PC tech, repairing every little hardware problem they may have. No, covering all the holes on your PC to make it quieter is *NOT* a good idea (had that last week)

I'm the monitor repair guy, resizing you screen because you played with the buttons too much.

I'm the mouse repair man, cleaning the guk out of your mouse.

I'm the bastard that has to explain that when your drive crashes, the files are gone. And I love listening to users complain that they had their life's work on there, and I absolutely *HAVE* to get it back. Bribes don't help drive crashes, they tell me you think I'm lying to you.

I'm the Cisco engineer, who selects your routing hardware, and then configures it.

I'm the hardware engineer who selects the parts, and builds the servers to handle the requested capacity.

I'm the guy that uses a hammer, torch, and dremel to make your old case accomodate your new hardware, just because you refuse to do the simple thing and buy the right case.

I'm the network engineer who makes a network that'll handle your load, and laughs when you want a GigE lan for your 2 workstations on a 384K DSL.

I do have to confess I really detest that word. When I see "Administrator" I think button-pusher and tape-changer. In companies with larger IT shops I've found the more senior techies get titles that end in "Engineer". The "Engineer" moniker suggests that you are involved in designing infrastructure, not just care and feeding.

I used to be a "Senior Server Engineer", but since I'm at a start-up now I've been busted down to a mere "System Administrator":-)

As far as a more generic title for the group of IT folks, I'd suggest "Operations Engineers", or perhaps "Information Operations Engineers" if you need to be more specific. Of course, if you're absolutely allergic to "Engineer" you can always go with "Administrator". Bleh.

I actually like my current title, as far as those things go...Chief IT Architect. Of course, I'm still also known as "The Computer Guy."

At a previous job, I made the progression in titles of Systems Engineer, Sr. Systems Engineer, Director of IT, and then VP of IT. Pretty spiffy title to end up with, but the kicker is that my job pretty much stayed the same the entire time. I only got to add doing client-facing meetings and some occasional power points or excel sheets. Most of the time I was left to do the real engineering work.

Regardless, my favorite title of all time has to be "Pixel Pusher." That was just a great business card to have.

When I worked in ops at compuserve, often there was no "Network Administrator". Instead the required tasks were handled by several different groups of people with titles like Unix Engineer, NT Security Specialist, or NOC Technician. Also, the term Network Administrator doesn't tell you much about what kind of administration a person is doing. Some companies might call any of the obove positions a Network Administrator.

The collective job is a mixture of changing the sheets, emptying the bedpans, dealing with the dilapitated, the demented and the elderly, funerals, autopsies, coroner's reports, pace makers, life support, and tense meetings with the next of kin.